I believe I have an example of a rule adapted to the internet: Being able to talk during retreat phases.

I was under the impression that this was allowed because in a FtF game you don't have to worry about being online enough to exchange enough messages to cover every possible scenario, and in a Mail Game you can write longer more detailed plans since you're not constrained to the 12-48 hour phases.

Correct me if that's wrong, but I'm betting there are other situations like that.

The problem is that there are no rules at all for anything but FtF, so we could keep arguing for the next 1000 years without obtaining nothing.
My suggestion is to go and suggest what you say about NMRs and the switching off of the chat during retreats/builds on the dev forum, where it might be more useful.

Damn, I type way too slow for this.

Kat, you're the one who started the adhoms.

But you've still not demonstrated, not repeatedly, not even once, that the rule NEEDS to be changed for online play.

You all give examples of changes in how to submit orders, timeframes, and communications. Those must be changed for online play. But none of them affect the pieces on the board. This rule DOES. And none of you can give a reason why it is necessary to change it.

Alright, I got one for you DipperDon:

Cheating is explicitly allowed in Diplomacy, there are numerous instances of the creator of the game saying that himself (I think the logic was something like "all's fair in war"), examples that are mentioned are moving pieces, adding pieces to the board, etc.

It seems like this is frowned upon in most circles, but certainly allowed. That would be absurd if we allowed in on this site, and make a complete mockery of what we enjoy. It's a rule change that affects the pieces on the board that's necessary for the integrity of the online game.

Interesting, rratcliff. I haven't read anything about Calhamer saying outright cheating is okay. Got some links?

Can you explain why this rule regarding disbandments of disloged nmr units must be changed for online play?

I'd read an article on it when I was starting out, I remember I saved it, I'll see if I can't find it.

With shorter phases than postal and without being forced to be involved as in FtF, I think people are more likely to miss a turn, and I think that retreats not being auto compensates for that. But that's just my opinion.

I'm going to go find that article before I look like a complete jackass. If anyone knows where I can find record of him saying that feel like helping me out?

The only thing I don't like about the current system is that it gives the active players in a game a second turn to attack a country who is technically in CD, without actually being in CD.

The only way I can think of keeping that from happening would be to have an "x" assigned in the retreat phase to a player who misses a turn (whether he has units displaced or not). That would give him/her a full phase to reclaim their country before it goes CD.

Don, I'm reading a lot of back and forth here: it is the rules - it isn't the rules, and I can honestly say from an observer's standpoint that this has moved past discussion. What advantage would a rules change have for the site? Aside from an "It's in the rules" standpoint, what other advantages would phpDiplomacy gain from making a shift?

Don, I had a feeling you'd ask for a list so I was already looking. All are from the 2000 edition:

First - conceivably important changes:

"At the beginning of the game players meet together one-on-one or in small groups to discuss their plans" - we have no capabilities for group meetings, which allows for a lot more lying.

"Negotiations last 30 minutes before the first turn and 15 minutes thereafter" - 3 day negotiation and planning periods allow strategic thinking far beyond what the original game envisioned.

"(players) may try to overhear the conversations of others" - espionage would be nice, but how?

"These retreats are written down ... and revealed at once. No diplomacy or negotiation takes place prior to writing retreat orders" - others have maintained that this change is significant (and I agree) but implementing it in a way true to the game and in an enforceable manner is utterly impossible.

"As with retreats gaining or loosing units ... are written and exposed simultaneously without discussion or diplomacy of any kind" - same comment as above. I would argue both of these are much more significant changes to the game than what you complain about.

And in the stupid little stuff category:

The aforementioned paper slips and out loud readings.

Orders are to be written in the format "F London holds"

"The turns are called 'Spring' and 'Fall'"

and most importantly

"Boundaries between countries are marked with heavy white lines"

Now how can we ever play properly when the map isn't even correct!


OK thats 10, half of which I could argue are significant changes to the way the game plays out and could conceivable change the result of a game.

Don, you may as well complain the last movie you went to was different from the book. The medium and constrains are different and at best one can only be an interpretation of the other. PhpDiplomacy is not and can not be Diplomacy precisely. At best it can be an interpretation of Diplomacy which aspires to preserve the spirit and feel of the game, not every single rule in its finest detail.

And back to your comment a few up Don. The simultaneous and non-negotiation retreat and build rules most certainly affect the placement of units on the board, and far more significantly than the change you complain about does.

Hmmmm..... Having trouble finding the article where Calhamer says it, but I found this (Not a great source, but it at least verifies I'm not crazy): http://www31.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=3403095&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Ddigest


Important section: In some circles cheating is not only allowed, but also actively encouraged. Players are allowed and expected to move pieces between turns, add extra armies (the so-called "Flying Dutchmen"), listen in to private conversations, change other players' written move orders and just about anything else they can get away with. In tournament play, however, these forms of cheating are generally prohibited, leaving only the lying and backstabbing which is prevalent wherever Diplomacy is played.

"And none of you can give a reason why it is necessary to change it."

I'm just trying to point out that if you want it to change you should use some more diplomacy and suggest it in the right place instead of saying phpDip goes against the rules

Anyway, I think a big reason for why talking during retreats is okay is that through email, phone, AIM, facebook, etc. we cannot shut down all forms of communication, and accepting the honor system is ludicrously naive. Might as well level the playing field.

Good list, Idrut. But again, none of them affect the pieces on the board like changing the nmr/dislodgement rule.

Maintgallant, good question about what benefit is there to changing. Which begs the question "what was the benefit of putting it in the FtF rules?" I'd say to follow the idea that routed units without leadership do not remain a cohesive fighting unit.

Why should that change in online play?

Rratclif, if you can find the line about cheating being allowed I'd love to see it too. When I first came to phpDiplomacy I clearly remembered that from my own High School days playing the game and wanted to use it in a post discussion but try as I might I could not find it at all.

The statement was that you could move a unit's location on the board (your's or another's) and if you were not caught before the orders were read, it stayed. I'm certain I read that but where or whether it was official or house rule or Calhamer I have no idea.

rratcliff, nice quote. But the "in some circles" makes it clear that those are "house rules" and that cheating is not officially legal.

Don, the retreat and build rules massively affect unit locations. I have only once seen units disband because of retreating to the same territory in a phpDiplomacy game. In FTF either it happens routinely or players retreat to less-favorable locations to void it occurring. Similarly giving allies time to discuss where to make builds or who builds fleets and who armies is very different from having them build and hope the other chose right.

Those situations will occur several times a game. The retreat after CD scenario is much less frequent and much less consequential.

I wish I could find it, but I know there are instances of Calhamer saying cheating was okay... I viewed it along the same lines as not all laws are in the constitution, but the people in charge say they're there. Calhamer says it's cool, so in my book it should be allowed.

Really wish I could find that Calhamer article though. It'd make me a lot more credible.

And I do understand that our current phpDiplomacy "house rule" is that nmr countries are allowed to retreat dislodged units. I'm not bashing this site. I LOVE this site and the community. If I'm giving a different impression, I apologize.

But I do wonder why we don't follow the actual rules on those dislodged units, and I have to ask why that is the case. I cannot think of a good reason why it is necessary.

Idrut, I totally agree with you on the non-negotiation. Someone, maybe Edi Birsan, said that the rule was there solely to speed up FtF games. I think it possible that the no-communication rule is there because in a real war routed units, possibly from different countries, wouldn't be likely to coordinate their retreats. Were it possible to turn off communications during retreats/builds, I think that would be best. Players would be on the honor system to not communicate by other means, just as in gunboat. So I think we are in agreement on that.

Also Don asks what is the benefit of making the change. Back to my original point - when a player leaves the table at a FTF game 99.9% of the time it is because he is no longer interested in the game and is abandoning the position. The assumption he will not return is generally valid.

Here is much different. There are lots of other reasons a turn will be missed. I've only completed 12 games but expect there are at least two to three dozen occasions of a player missing a turn then returning to play more (including at least two cases of four or more players missing the same turn). Some have been because of forgetfulness, some due to work or school, some due to out-of-town trips lasting longer than expected.

Which is better - allowing the person who knows the games and alliances to return or bringing in a new player who knows none of his. If so, why make his position even worse. Why punish a person for something beyond his control?

The rule was designed to handle a person who is leaving the game and to make clear what to do when there were no orders and no possibility of orders. This requested change does not seem designed to make the online game better - it is just a plan to punish the player for missing his turn or reward a player for happening to be next to him. How does that improve the game?

I know Edi says the retreat rules are just to speed up the game but I don't buy it. If we just needed a fast game they could have specified a 5 minute negotiation phase which would be more than enough. I think it is specifically to force a bit of fog of war and to increase the occasions where players have to guess the other player's moves. Not having that and allowing allies to negotiate their builds actually makes alliances stronger than the would be otherwise.

I wish there was a way to make it secret and quick, but there isn't a way that does not in some way violate the rules as written.

Ihave a real urge to say something in the lines of "pwned!" but I'll refrain.

"...when a player leaves the table at a FTF game 99.9% of the time it is because he is no longer interested in the game and is abandoning the position. The assumption he will not return is generally valid...Here is much different..."

Excellent. This is what I was looking for. You make some great points, that have me already mostly convinced.

It's weird, typically I would 100% agree with DipperDon, I think that rules are designed for a reason and thus should be followed (with things like games I mean), but I take an exception to Diplomacy, it seems that the community has kept it a constantly evolving, improving game.

Wow, too many posts between Idurt's at 3:20 and mine at 3:36...

@ Don... I'm not sure I have a handle on the importance of the difference. I'm not trying to agree or disagree or way judgment, but since I'm relatively new to the site and the game, I'm having trouble understanding the nature of the suggestion.

The closest I can link it to is the rule that a fleet successfully convoys an army even when it is attacked, which to me is counter-intuitive. How can that happen? How can a force perform two functions at once (ie, convoying an army AND holding a square). I've seen a lot of players perform wizardly sorts of maneuvers with convoy systems, and it all seems whimsical to me. Why not keep it simple? If I convoy is attacked the function should end. To me it's pretty nuts as is.

Am I on the right track of your complaint?